382

Harris leads Trump in polls, but remains an underdog due to the Electoral College (www.msnbc.com)

submitted 1 year ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world

55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 108 points 1 year ago

As usual, national polls mean nothing without national elections, but lets see where we're at...

Arizona - Trump +1, +3, +5
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/arizona/

Nevada - Toss Up - Harris +1, Trump +1, Ties
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/nevada/

New Mexico - Harris +7, +8, +11
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/new-mexico/

Georgia - Toss Up Harris +1, +2, Tie
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/georgia/

North Carolina - Toss Up Trump +1, Tie
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/north-carolina/

Pennsylvania - Toss Up Harris +1, Trump +1/+2, ties
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/

Michigan - Harris +3, +5, Trump +1, Tie
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/michigan/

Wisconsin - Harris +4, +6, Trump +1
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/

Minnesota - Harris +5, +7, +11
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/minnesota/

Arizona moves out of toss-up territory for the first time in a long time, moving to Trump.

Michigan is still with Harris, but slipping. Next round of polling could flip to Trump.

Let's look at the map:

So, of the "Undecideds", PA by itself puts Harris at 270. She could lose NV, NC, GA, AZ and still win with PA.

PA is NOT enough to win for Trump. That only puts him at 249. So he needs PA + 21 more. GA and NC are both 16, Nevada is 6.

So PA + any 2 other states, GA+NC, GA+NV, NC+NV.

If Trump takes PA and GA, and Harris gets NC + NV, she wins with 273. Same with GA + NC. 283 if she loses NV and takes GA+NC.

Much harder road for Trump to win here, but both of them absolutely must have PA.

[-] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 38 points 1 year ago

I can't believe it's this close and I hate that Harris is starting to slip in some states. My heart can't handle another Trump presidency.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Then make plans to move out of the country. A close 2024 win for liberalism without solid leads in Congress means nothing but another nailbiter in 2028.

[-] Bogan@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Moving out of the country is impossible for 99% of the people who would want to.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

To where? Right wing fascism is on the rise pretty much everywhere.

[-] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Holy Kornacki, thank you for putting that together.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I don't even have a big board!

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

jordanlund is a Lemminal treasure.

[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I'm starting to question 538s predictions not because there is any problem with the models, but because there is a filter on what polls they choose to include. I don't want to call it bias, it's just a blind spot that their model isn't getting all the input for.

Of course it's not like anyone else is doing a better job either.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Polling is inherently problematic every time you see they polled "likely voters" as opposed to "registered voters".

If they're self selecting who they consider to be "likely", it's going to have a skewed result.

[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Likely voters are those that have voted before, that's what makes them likely to vote again. For the most part they're the more accurate people to be polling.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

And discounts first time voters.

Some even only count people who voted in the last 2 elections.

[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Because new voters are a rounding error smaller than the error bars of the sample size.

Polling is pretty much like the unemployment rate. Any individual reading is meaningless, it's a multitude of readings over time that give any useful information.

[-] nieminen@lemmy.world 58 points 1 year ago

Hope she wins, and pushes through something to dismantle the collage. We need ranked choice.

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a good first step: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[-] bamboo 8 points 1 year ago

This is just a bandaid and the conservative justices on the supreme court will strike it down for some stupid reason.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

We cant dismantle the electoral college easily, but what we can do is revoke the law putting caps on the number of representatives and electoral college votes. It wouldnt be perfect but it may be enough to knee cap the GOP for awhile. Also pass a law that allows reps to vote remotely from home offices in their districts.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

99% of the problems stem from the house not getting bigger over the last 100 years.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Yep, both the house and college were meant to expand with tge population, which makes their issues far less egregious. Is the electoral college particularly good? Fuck no, but it was never meant to meant to be capped either it was still a proportional system. Hell the only reason either were capped was due to the fact that at the time the population was in flux both in number and location, but it shouldve been uncapped either in the 50s or 60s since thats around when things stabilized.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

The electoral college makes s3nse for a federated system, but the US has largely eroded states as a meaningful level of governance.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Unless she gets the presidency, the Democrats roll up supermajorities in the House and Senate, and a majority of states put in Democratic governors, this isn't happening. IE: it isn't happening.

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 3 points 1 year ago

There are in fact a couple of workarounds for this.

If Harris wins and Dems get enough majority control of both houses (enough to get around likely no votes from maverick Dems like Joe Manchin), then the Senate majority leader (Schumer) can lower the bar for a filibuster to a bare majority.

Then pass a new law appointing nine new Supreme Court justices. Harris nominates them and the Senate approves them.

Then pass a new federal law that requires the electoral vote of states to follow the nationwide popular vote, as per the Compact. You get the same effect without needing the States to sign on, and with the court packed the law hopefully will be able to withstand the challenges.

Plan B - if we really do need a constitutional amendment to fix this and abolish the Electoral College outright - then drop the filibuster as above, but then follow this plan https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review

Basically pass a law that allows each neighborhood of DC to be admitted in as a new state - so 127 in all - and with the new supermajority of states (and corresponding supermajorities in both Houses), pass whatever constitutional amendments are required.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] nieminen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Almost the whole house is up for reelection this November as well, so maybe at least that part can be handled.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

The whole house and 1/3 of the senate is up for reelection every 2 years...

[-] nieminen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, but I feel as though people are more active this election, so I think there's a larger chance of at least getting rid of the super majority in the house.

[-] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Don't hold your breath. The system works for the right people

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

"The right people" I see what you did there.

[-] Eiri@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Even without ranked choice it would be an upgrade to be rid of the college

[-] Zerlyna@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Cat ladies doing our part! 💪😻

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Don’t stop. The popular vote isn’t enough, and Trump is still a slight favorite to win.

[-] CatsGoMOW@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Cat gentleman doing my part! 💪😻

[-] simplejack@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Cat doing my part! 💪😻

[-] transientpunk@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Cat theydie doing my part! 💪😻

[-] thegr8goldfish@startrek.website 32 points 1 year ago

If Diaper wins I'm done. Just move to the boonies and just go full media blackout until 2028 or when the zombies show up

[-] smeenz@lemmy.nz 22 points 1 year ago

If trump wins, what makes you think there will be an election in 2028 ?

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

He's been pretty open about their not being another need to vote

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

I really hate our electoral college system. Giving undue privilege to certain regions, most especially rural areas, is exceedingly stupid and just holds this country back so very much. It'd be one thing if more weight was given to the areas that the most going for them - as far as GDP/brain power/influence and so on. But instead, it's the opposite.

Apologists for the slavery-era holdover that is the EC will say "but the candidates will just mostly go to big cities" - yeah, NO KIDDING. That's where the fucking people are. That's who the government serves. Not land. Right now the candidates mostly campaign in "battleground states" because of the stupid and backward EC. Instead of trying to get the most votes across the entire nation.

Ridiculous.

Our Senate and House are not that much better than the way we choose Presidents, either. The population of states is not given proper consideration, even for the House.

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

"person may lose the election by getting the most votes" is this even a thing outside the US?

i know winning without a majority vote is a thing in multiparty systems where the winner will have plurality instead... but having the majority vote and losing is just fucking insane to me.

[-] Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz 9 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately yes, it’s huge problem with first past the post systems.

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

how?

i was talking about electoral college. never heard a party receiving a majority vote losing in the first past the post system.

[-] Viper_NZ@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 year ago

A good example is the 1981 election in New Zealand, where the Labour Party won more votes but the National Party won more seats and formed the government.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Whether it's possible for a party to win a majority of votes but lose an election, in a first-past-the-post system, will depend on the how the electoral districts are drawn, the voter turnout in each district, and the geographical distribution of the majority. The system itself does allow this to happen.

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

i was talking about general elections. usually the popular vote determines it, no matter where the votes come from. you're still talking about electoral college, not fptp.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not familiar with how the US electoral college works. I am talking about FPTP electoral systems like those in the UK and Canada. One MP is elected per constituency, and if a party wins a majority of the seats (that is, if they have a majority of the MPs), they can form a government. In such a system it's common for a party to win the majority of seats without having a majority of votes, and possible for a party with the majority of votes not to win a majority of seats.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

It's possible by using votes to mean a meaningless number that isn't part of how a president is elected. It would be like complaining that getting the most roses on opening night should make someone the best actor.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 year ago

Empty land doesn't vote. But it can get you extra representation per capita, somehow.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

MSNBC - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for MSNBC:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/rcna169298

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

IDK about that. The electoral seems to be in pretty good shape at this time for Harris, but best to ignore it for now

load more comments

this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024

382 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25987 readers

1248 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News